The Daily Telegraph reports that “a new European Union carbon border tax could lead to tariffs being slapped on British imports of steel, cement and aluminium in a climate change trade war after Brexit”. It adds: “Sources in Brussels said the tax, which is in the early stages of drafting, was aimed principally at unfair competition from polluting non-EU countries such as the US, China and Russia. Experts said it was as yet undecided whether the levy would make up the difference in the carbon price or be much higher.  But diplomats admitted the plan could also be levelled against Britain, which left the EU on January 31. The tax is likely to gain support as a way of protecting European businesses after the commission launched its plan to cut the EU’s net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.” The newspaper further explains: “The tax will give the European Commission the power to impose levies of imports on goods with a heavy carbon footprint. The tariff would target countries where the carbon emissions price is lower than in the EU. If Britain was to diverge too far from the EU’s green policies, the trade defence measures would prove a powerful weapon as the EU toughens its global climate diplomacy.” Elsewhere, Vox says the Democrat presidential candidates are also arguing that they too want to use trade to get other countries to act on climate change.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that “the US justice department has dropped its antitrust inquiry into four automakers that had sided with California in its dispute with the Trump administration over reducing climate-warming vehicle pollution, deciding that the companies had violated no laws, according to people familiar with the matter”.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that UK climate minister Lord Duncan told a Lords debate last week that a white paper due this year will consider whether the government should ban gas central heating altogether from all homes. The newspaper adds: “It is not clear if homeowners will have to pay for this new strategy – which is planned to be introduced incrementally over the next decade – and whether there are enough plumbers to carry out the work…A source at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said that ministers would publish this year a ‘roadmap for heat policy which will set out the steps required to make key decisions on heat decarbonisation in the 2020s’. It said that there ‘are a number of options that could play an important role in decarbonising heat, including heat networks, heat pumps, hydrogen and biogas. Given the diversity of heat demand, no one solution can provide the best option for everyone – a mix of technologies and customer options will need to be available to decarbonise heat at scale.’”

Meanwhile, BusinessGreen reports that “measures aimed at enhancing consumer protection across the burgeoning market for low-carbon heat networks have been unveiled by the government, backed by £40m of fresh funding to support the development of seven new district heating projects”. It adds: “A government consultation launched late last week sets out plans to give energy watchdog Ofgem responsibility for regulating heat networks, in a bid to boost protections for households that are effectively locked in to a single district heating provider.” Bloomberg notes that Storm Ciara, which hit the UK over the weekend, meant that “wind filled the highest ever portion of Britain’s electricity needs”, with the storm also “disrupting power supplies, interrupting transport and forcing soccer matches to be postponed”.

“Boris Johnson’s pledge to plant 30m trees a year could cost taxpayers £15bn over three decades, with most of the cash going to big landowners and farmers,” says the Sunday Times. It adds: “The money would be needed to pay the owners of land first to plant trees and then to maintain them, says the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents the owners. In a submission that includes the first costings for the prime minister’s tree ambition, the association will tell ministers they must double public payments for woodland care from £80 to £160 an acre before landowners will do as Johnson asks. The calculations, equivalent to 40p per tree per year, are supported by independent experts. It means that instead of getting about 20p per tree annually for 10 years, as at present, owners would get 40p a year for three decades. This would pay for planting a mix of conifers and broadleaf trees to raise Britain’s woodland cover from 13% of the country to 19%, locking up carbon and combating climate change.” The Sunday Telegraph reports that “farmers have warned that plans to plant millions of trees as part of the fight against climate change threaten their livelihood and the future of rural communities”. It adds: “They say valuable grazing land could be lost and that ‘reforestation’ schemes could eventually lead to villages being abandoned. Farming campaigners have spoken out in response to plans by the National Trust to create 18,000 hectares (44,478 acres) of new woodland across Wales, England and Northern Ireland by 2030…The National Farmers Union (NFU) has accused the NT of ignoring farmers’ concerns.” Vox says that in the US tree-planting is “Trump’s politically safe new climate plan” and has “struck a chord with some Republicans lately”.

Meanwhile, BBC News has a news feature by Kevin Keane, BBC Scotland’s environment correspondent, who poses the question: “Do Scotland’s farmers have a problem coming to terms with the realities of climate change?” He continues: “At the annual farmers’ union conference in Glasgow, the issue was a thread which ran through the two days. With the appointment last year of a climate change policy officer, it appears the union see this as a top priority. But the tone and language used at the conference suggests there’s a way to go. In his ‘state of the union’ address, NFU Scotland president Andrew McCornick twice used the word ‘hoax’ in talking about climate change.”

Several newspaper carry comment about the UK government’s troubled handling of hosting COP26. In the FT, columnist and former number 10 policy director Camilla Cavendish says “the British government…is stumbling badly”. She adds: “COP26 should be an opportunity for post-Brexit Britain to enhance its global reputation. Instead, it has descended into petty squabbling. The government has no clear plan for the negotiations and currently no president, having sacked the incumbent, Claire O’Neill…There is still time to restore British dignity and drive change. But not much. Countries must be persuaded to raise their ambitions in the next three to four months, if firm commitments are to be made in November. With the US sulking on the sidelines, the key to success in Glasgow will be getting an anchor deal between the EU and China, which other nations will then be drawn towards.” She concludes: “Is [Boris] Johnson taking this seriously enough? The vagueness of some of his remarks suggest that he is thinking less about the global mission and more about flag-waving to his domestic audience. But COP26 offers post-Brexit Britain a chance to lead the world in climate change, boost our science base and enhance our reputation. We mustn’t trip up.” In the Guardian, Jonathan Watts asks whether Johnson “can be trusted to act on the climate crisis”: “On that question, almost all the evidence – from parliamentary voting records and donations from climate sceptics to his newspaper columns and performance as mayor – says no.” The Guardian also reports the comments of Mary Robinson, a former UN climate envoy and Ireland’s first female president, who says the UK is showing a “lack of coherence” in its preparations for COP26. A number of Sunday newspapers in the UK, including the Mail on Sunday, report that Michael Gove is the favourite to be named as the new COP26 president this week in a cabinet reshuffle. In the Independent, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas argues that the UK is “failing miserably” as COP26 host. Germany’s Der Spiegel says that “internal power struggles” are dominating the UK’s preparations for COP26. Writing in the Spectator, climate sceptic commentator Charles Moore describes the “real reason” why COP26 “will be a nightmare”.

With last week’s announcement by the UK government that it wants to see an end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035, several publications carry comment about the UK’s plans to go net-zero by 2050. An editorial in the Spectator says: “It’s right for Britain to be ambitious. We have decarbonised our economy faster than any of the 25 other countries whose leaders will be at the COP26 summit. But even our current world-beating trajectory is not enough to hit a 2050 target: this needs a step change – and significant government intervention. Industry cannot be expected to do the work itself. An early ban on hybrid cars is a taste of the kind of medicine that will be necessary. It’s time the PM admitted that a great many other changes will follow…If the prime minister intends to position Britain as a global leader in a ‘net zero’ project, using the chairmanship of the COP26 to rally others, then he ought to have the courage to spell out the implications. Does he agree with cost estimates? He won’t say. If he’s serious about the 2035 electric car target, how does he plan to equip Britain with enough charging points? Are there plans in place to build an energy grid large enough to power the nation’s electric cars? There is no answer. Perhaps this is because, as Emmanuel Macron has found, the answers do not always go down very well.” In the Guardian, Emily Thornberry, who is currently seeking to be elected Labour’s new leader, says the UK must lead the “globalisation of the green new deal” and a first step would be to build a Severn tidal barrage. In the Daily Telegraph, Madeline Grant argues that it is time to “put net-zero to a referendum”. She adds: “Why not put net-zero to a referendum, in which costs, benefits and risks may be properly debated? Major changes require public consent. If we are serious about democratic renewal, the environment should be put to the vote too.”

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times’ driving editor Nick Rufford argues: “Amid the electric hype, it is important to note that the greenest cars are not always the ones that emit the least CO2; often they are the ones that last the longest.” On this topic, last week Carbon Brief updated its factcheck on electric cars due to newly published evidence, which shows: “In the UK in 2019, the lifetime emissions per kilometre of driving a Nissan Leaf EV were about three times lower than for the average conventional car, even before accounting for the falling carbon intensity of electricity generation during the car’s lifetime.” In the Independent, Hamish McRae writes that “Tesla’s electric cars are leaving industry giants in the dust – a revolution is imminent”.

Global fire emissions could be 30% higher than previously estimated, according to new satellite data. For the study, the authors compared new data derived from an imaging sensor onboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites with earlier estimates used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. The analysis considers emissions from biomass burning and peat fires.

Warming in the Arctic Ocean could be driving increased connectivity between the Arctic and Pacific Oceans – which could have far-reaching consequences for marine wildlife, according to a new study. The new research finds that rapid change in the Arctic, including warming and the disappearance of sea ice, could be creating new “shortcuts” between the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. The authors say: “The discovery of Pacific diatom Neodenticula seminae in the Atlantic suggests that a tipping point may have already been reached, and this ‘opening up’ of the Arctic could already be underway.”